linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] firmware load: defer request_firmware during early boot and resume

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 20 Jul 2012 15:54:25 +0200
From:	Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.de>
To:	Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-usb <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Subject: Re: [RFC] firmware load: defer request_firmware during early boot and resume

On Friday 20 July 2012 20:33:32 Ming Lei wrote:
> The RFC patch is just for discussing if the idea of deferring
> request_firmware is doable for addressing the issue of
> request_firmware in resume path, which is caused by driver
> unbind/rebind during resume.
> 
> At least usb bus is involved in such things, one driver may be
> unbound and rebound in resume path at several situations, and
> request_firmware is often called inside probe().
> 
> Also the idea should be helpful for other hotplug buses too,
> at least there was the similar problem report on pcmcia bus.

The approach seems to me to be less comprehensive than
it ought to be. If you defer, why not the whole probe()?
Deferring only the upoad of the firmware complicates
error handling.

	Regards
		Oliver

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/